User talk:Leo Fox/Type 28 All-Environment Sniper Loadout
To reiterate Ajax's point (sorry Ajax, I started writing this before you posted) the recoil from that kind of round would break your shoulder, without providing significant benefits over, say, a 12.7x99 or 14.5x114mm round, both of which are fully capable of cutting a human in half, based on their 20th century equivalents. Additionally, 4000gr of powder, using the highest density I could find for gunpowder, is more than 1.6 Liters, which results in a cartridge casing that's 1 inch thick and 3.197 meters long (that's 4 times the length of an average human stride), or when I used a casing that was 2 inches thick (huge!), I got a casing that was as long as a typical human stride (0.78 meters). Way too big. Final point, and this one is more of a minor thing: Generally, militaries name individual systems, not entire load outs.--Supercavitation (talk) 04:27, August 11, 2013 (UTC) The term "loadout" refers not just to the weapons carried by a Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Airman, but to the entirety of his/her kit carried during a particular mission or for a particular duty. Loadouts are often similar in accordance with mission expectations, but they are not named or designated save informally, as they are not official. As example, it can often be inferred simply by looking at photographs or video footage of personnel in the field what conflict is taking place at that time, as troops in different theaters are equipped differently to accommodate for different expectations and conditions. An "Iraqi" loadout for one Soldier will be similar to the "Iraqi" loadout for another, and an "Afghan" loadout will likewise be similar to other "Afghan" loadouts, but an "Iraqi" loadout and an "Afghan" loadout will be easily differentiable by virtue of the fact that the conditions and expectations associated with the Iraqi theater are completely different from those of Afghanistan. It would be unrealistic by today's technology and standards, I am quite offended by that statement, don't take it wrong, but I feel extremely offended, the UNSC already had the technology to make the round as strong as possible. I will apparently have to make more detail as a requirement to this article. The round would use better technology to make it what it is (or was).--The kennynator (talk) 00:44, August 12, 2013 (UTC) And why introduce another SMG? This was the (fanon) predecessor to the M7 and the M99.--The kennynator (talk) 00:46, August 12, 2013 (UTC) It doesn't all depend on the round, the gun it is fired from is just as important, I will explain why, in the future, why the gun is so powerful.--The kennynator (talk) 02:59, August 12, 2013 (UTC) :You've got 13 days to do it, and I don't think you can explain it to the communities liking/to any degree of realism in its current form. : 03:54, August 12, 2013 (UTC) Additionally, using C4 as propellant would shatter the barrel, as well as probably much of the rest of the gun as well, since C4 is a high explosive. Here are some pointers, please read carefully, and take some time to think: The reason the gun has magnets, is because it has to be related to the M99, which some of you never noticed that it uses magnets, don't talk about the magnets unless you have read up on the M99, and read ALL of the talk on this page. Another thing is the C-4 in the shell of the bullet, it would be smaller than your pinkie toe, and, APPARENTLY, I have to describe more about the gun, the barrel is coated with iron, as well as some copper. Also, Gerard, I found your last statement to be very offensive to me, so I will let you know, I don't appreciate it when people insult me, if you make any further statements that offend me, I will delete the statement, thank you, have a nice day, goodbye.--The kennynator (talk) 19:20, August 12, 2013 (UTC) :Er, your argument is flawed, Kenny. We understand canon quite well and have obviously put thought into our replies. We understand the concepts behind the M99. So whats your point? What you are proposing is a hybrid weapon: using magnetic and explosive propellent. Lets look at it this way, the M99 is an exceedingly large and heavy weapon with the magnetic coils and other systems. If you were to adopt that in the Type 28 (sidenote: lose the 'Loadout' and replace it with 'Rifle System'), the weapon would be damned heavy - adding an explosive propellent system has a whole new set of pitfalls (as explained above by Ajax and company). For this reason, and ones pointed out above (in addition to many more), this is unrealistic. (TL;DR scrap that in its entirety) :You don't need to describe more about the gun, because its already an highly overcomplicated, heavy weapon, and unrealistic as it is. Recall the KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid), and just scrap effectively all the article and rewrite it to be either a conventional rifled weapon with ~2,500 m/s muzzle velocity, or a magnetic weapon with a much, much higher velocity. :Also: there have been no personal attacks on you, besides observations that you do not understand the subject material you are attempting to talk with the Community members mabout. If you delete any statements for alleged personal attacks, they will be restored and you will be issued an official civility warning. If a civility violation occurs on this page by another user, then the administration will react accordingly: however, you do not have the right to purge a comment from a talk page simply for disliking the content. :Please listen to the advice offered by myself and the writers above, : 22:32, August 12, 2013 (UTC) Ajax summed up the current problems with the page extremely well, so allow me to offer some tips about how to fix those problems, assuming you don't want to start over or get namespaced. C4: Scrap the C4. It's an outdated explosive by then, and there's a reason that the current military doesn't use C4 to propel bullets, which has been explained repeatedly above. Just use whatever the 26th century equivalent of gunpowder is. Magnets: If you want to keep the magnets, scrap the chemical propellant entirely, if you want to keep the chemical propellant, scrap the magnets. A gauss cannon (or a railgun, the article is kind of vague about that) is complicated enough already without throwing in a chemical system as well. Murphy's Law is the key here, try to make sure there are as few parts that can break as possible. Also, if you want to keep the magnets, I'd suggest using a ferric tungsten core instead of what you have right now, since the non-magnetic materials you have right now won't be affected by the unknown magnetic system you have in this rifle, and you want a dense core, you can have a lightweight exterior if you want, but make sure to keep the core dense for maximum penetration (they're also not cheap enough to be used in bullets, remember that the contract is usually given to the lowest bidder). Barrel: Stick to modern barrel techniques. You're not going to make a better barrel by throwing a few compounds together. There's a reason that modern barrels are made the way they are, so I'd suggest using a modern barrel. Warhead: Tannerite is, as Ajax said, not an effective explosive. I'd get rid of it, and replace it with a real (read: powerful) explosive. Also, I'm not sure what nuclear paste is, but creating a nuclear explosion is an extremely complex process, not something you can do with "paste" and a detonator, I'd scrap that as well, stick to C12 (26th century C4 anyone?) or something like it. Bullets: Whether or not you keep the magnets, you're going to have to change the materials of the bullets. First things first, you have the armor piercing round inside out. Remember that you want a dense core and a lightweight but hard outer material, perhaps tungsten or steel for the core, and titanium or some similar material for the outside. Also, I'd lower the caliber for the rifle. The .800 round is far oversized and would break your shoulder when you fired, assuming it didn't tear your arm off. It also doesn't provide any actual benefits over a 12.7x99mm or 14.5x114mm round when you get rid of the god-modded Scorpion destroying abilty. As for the SMG, the .45 caliber round is outdated in a universe where the standard handgun fires a larger round. Remember that modern day body armor can deflect a .45 caliber round, while a smaller round like the 4.6x30mm can penetrate. I would suggest using a PDW round like the 5.7x28mm or 4.6x30mm. One more thing that bothered me that doesn't need fixing: what is that on top of the scope on the sniper rifle? Hope that helped.--Supercavitation (talk) 03:21, August 13, 2013 (UTC) WW2Halo classification Some details... The .45 Heartbreaker round was made to penetrate body armor, it is not completely a .45 round, it has a Tungsten metal core to use magnets to propell it, and the case is made out of gold, mixed with water. The 'thing' on top of the scope is an automatic targeter, pointing a laser where you need to shoot to hit the target, compensating for wind and humidity.--The kennynator (talk) 07:56, August 14, 2013 (UTC) :You did write this blurb about the .45 in your article; but as per previous argument, this is shown to be a problem, as the .45 is not a standard ammunition type in this era. More to the point, you are entirely missing the point of the arguments we have been making regarding the ammunition type, the entire magnetic thing, and the tungsten. You are not refuting any points that have been made in regards to your page being tagged as NCF with your current replies. Not in the least. :As for the 'automated targeter', there are problems with that (notably the lack of accounting for gravity drop) but they are so minor in comparison with the previously mentioned issues with your article. : : There is no such thing as "semi-nuclear paste". That doesn't make sense.